The parental complex occupies a foundational position in the depth-psychological corpus, functioning as the point where clinical observation, archetypal theory, and developmental psychology converge. Jung introduced the term to describe the cluster of affects, images, and autonomous reactions organized around the internalized mother and father figures — what his earlier vocabulary called imagos. The corpus reveals a productive tension between two frames: one personalistic, in which the actual behavior of real parents sediments into unconscious complexes that govern later object-choice and neurotic fixation; and one archetypal, in which the parental imago is understood as the individual expression of transpersonal patterns — World Mother and World Father — that precede and exceed any biographical parent. Jung’s own clinical writings (CW 1, CW 4, CW 16) emphasize how the anachronistic persistence of an infantile libido-attachment to parental figures constitutes the structural core of most neuroses, while CW 10 and Two Essays stress that the parental imago normally serves as the initial vehicle for archetypal content later differentiated into anima and animus. Post-Jungian voices — Stein, Hollis, Samuels, and the astrological psychologists Greene and Sasportas — extend and contest this ground, debating the relative weight of personal wounding versus archetypal patterning, the intergenerational transmission of unlived life, and the therapeutic leverage available when the complex is brought into consciousness. Hillman’s dissent registers the risk of a ‘parental fallacy’ that reduces the soul’s calling to family pathology.